REVIEW 2 cited by
Evaluating the Evaluation of Diversity in Natural Language Generation
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Evaluating the Evaluation of Diversity in Natural Language Generation
read the original abstract
Despite growing interest in natural language generation (NLG) models that produce diverse outputs, there is currently no principled method for evaluating the diversity of an NLG system. In this work, we propose a framework for evaluating diversity metrics. The framework measures the correlation between a proposed diversity metric and a diversity parameter, a single parameter that controls some aspect of diversity in generated text. For example, a diversity parameter might be a binary variable used to instruct crowdsourcing workers to generate text with either low or high content diversity. We demonstrate the utility of our framework by: (a) establishing best practices for eliciting diversity judgments from humans, (b) showing that humans substantially outperform automatic metrics in estimating content diversity, and (c) demonstrating that existing methods for controlling diversity by tuning a "decoding parameter" mostly affect form but not meaning. Our framework can advance the understanding of different diversity metrics, an essential step on the road towards better NLG systems.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
The One-Word Census: Answer-Choice Conformity Across 44 Language Models
Across 31 open one-word categories, 44 LMs converge extremely (often >80% on one answer), with newest flagships most conformist and persona-tuned models most divergent.
-
The One-Word Census: Answer-Choice Conformity Across 44 Language Models
Forty-four language models asked to name one thing per category converge on the same modal answers far more than people do, with newest flagships most conformist and persona-tuned models most divergent.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.